2009 (11) TMI 854 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner without finding any illegality in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner partly allowing the appeal? Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in treating the loan transaction as a sale also on the ground that the petitioners are not financiers? Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Sales Tax Tribunal ought to have held that the levy of penalty was unjustified and illegal? Held that - In a best judgment assessment guesswork is inevitable but it should be a reasonable one. The AAC was justified in finding that the estimated assessment from serial Nos. 1 to 96 was unreasonable. In our considered view the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order of the AAC in respect of slip No. 1 insofar as the estimated assessment. The Tribunal did not keep in view the documents produced by the assessee. The Tribunal was not right in saying that the amount could not have been taken from business. The assessee is a dealer in buying and selling of utensils having daily collections. Therefore it cannot be said that the amount so paid to M/s. Reliance Electricals was a colourable device to evade purchase transaction. When the findings of the AAC were based on documents the STAT was not justified in raising doubts and interfering with the findings of the AAC. In such view of the matter the order of the STAT in respect of slip No. 3 cannot be sustained. Tax revision is partly allowed. Insofar as slip Nos. 1 and 3 the order of the STAT is set aside. Insofar as addition of 4, 95, 816 in respect of transaction with M/s. Kalaivani Metals the order of the STAT remitting the matter back to the assessing authority is confirmed. The assessing authority shall consider the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee and also to the Revenue and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of exemption claimed on total turnover.
2. Assessment of stock variation and suppression of turnover.
3. Disallowance of claim of exemption on alleged purchases.
4. Setting aside orders of Appellate Assistant Commissioner by Sales Tax Tribunal.
5. Treatment of loan transaction as a sale.
6. Justification of levy of penalty.

Issue 1 - Disallowance of exemption claimed on total turnover:
The assessee reported a total and taxable turnover, claiming the entire turnover as exempt. During inspection, a stock variation was noticed, leading to estimated suppression. The assessing authority proposed disallowing the claim of exemption based on alleged purchases. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) modified the order, and the Sales Tax Tribunal (STAT) further reviewed the case. The High Court found the Tribunal unjustified in setting aside the AAC's order regarding estimated assessment, emphasizing the need for reasonable guesswork in best judgment assessments.

Issue 2 - Assessment of stock variation and suppression of turnover:
The AAC and STAT differed on various aspects of the assessment. For instance, in slip No. 1, the AAC found only actual suppression of Rs. 1,440, while the assessing officer estimated turnover for other bills. The Tribunal confirmed the assessing authority's findings on slip No. 1 and made additional adjustments. Regarding slip No. 3, a loan transaction was treated as a purchase suppression, leading to penalty imposition. The High Court criticized the Tribunal for not considering the documents proving the loan transaction and for raising doubts without sufficient basis.

Issue 3 - Disallowance of claim of exemption on alleged purchases:
The dispute over alleged purchases from Kalaivani Metals led to the matter being remitted back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. The AAC had observed that Kalaivani Metals was a genuine dealer, but the Revenue contested this, claiming the dealer was non-existent. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remit the matter for further assessment, considering the arguments presented by the State Representative.

Issue 4 - Setting aside orders of Appellate Assistant Commissioner by Sales Tax Tribunal:
The High Court found the Tribunal unjustified in interfering with the AAC's orders without proper legal grounds. The Tribunal's doubts and interference with AAC's findings, especially regarding slip No. 3, were criticized for lacking substantive basis.

Issue 5 - Treatment of loan transaction as a sale:
The High Court analyzed the loan transaction treated as a purchase suppression and found the Tribunal's doubts unfounded, emphasizing the need to consider the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal's disregard for the documents and unsupported assumptions were deemed improper by the High Court.

Issue 6 - Justification of levy of penalty:
The imposition of penalty at 50% of the taxes was challenged by the assessee. The High Court did not find substantial reasons to interfere with the penalty decision, as the matter was closely linked to the assessment of transactions and turnover, which required proper consideration and documentation.

In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the tax revision, setting aside the Tribunal's orders on certain issues while confirming the remittance of the matter back to the assessing authority for further examination. The assessing authority was directed to reevaluate the issues within a specified timeframe, considering all relevant evidence and legal aspects.

← Previous Next →